1 Joule of Energy

[Aaron]

anonymous comments

And you name is Jbigness? Do you have the confidence to put your face and your name to anything you are saying whatsoever?

The principle I have shared is ACCURATE and if you don't get it, it is because you choose not to understand it and not because the principle is flawed.

My view has to broaden?

Your view is a dime a dozen and is nothing new...it is simply the conventional viewpoint, which is known to be completely flawed.

The open system and systems I describe ARE open systems and if you deny that, you are seriously misinformed and it is only your own viewpoint that needs to be broadened.

You can believe in the delusional view that something lifted against gravity at any height is "STORING" energy if you want but that just proves you have the conventional viewpoint of what potential is, which is absolutely and completely flawed as a matter of fact.

Your potential that is stored is an IMAGINARY concept, which dosen't exist in the physical world and you cannot show any change in the intrinsic property of an apple at an increased height.

If an apple is lying on the ground and I dig a hole next to it 10 feet deep, relative to the apple resting on the ground level, the conventional viewpoint would suddenly manifest a fictitious and delusional amount of potential that is suddenly supposed to be stored in that apple. I mean, anyone that believes that is seriously committed to self deception.

What changed in the apple by having 10 feet of depth suddenly manifest next to the apple lying on the ground? Not a single thing! That is because there is NO SUCH THING as storing potential. You can only create a potential difference that allows potential to be tapped and put to work.

The apple resting at any height has no stored potential from it being raised. That is ridiculous. If I hold it in my hand completely still at 6 feet above ground, there is no sudden amount of increased potential in that apple compared to it lying on the ground period. There is NO POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE that the apple sees while it is completely still at that height. ONLY when I let go is there a potential difference, gravity imparts a push on the apple and the apple hits the ground and produces work (and also produced work moving against air resistance)...that work added to what was necessary to lift the apple is MORE than what I had to provide.

You can say the hand holding the apple to begin with is the originating system, that is fine - the very moment the apple is let go of and gravitational potential is then able to be tapped by the apple, at that point, the system GROWS and GROWS and GROWS until the apple is at a dead rest.

Each time the system GROWS, more work is able to be extracted by the free potential and all that cumulative work is added together and is MORE than what was necessary to get the system started.

Again, a BOUNCING BALL IS OVER 1.0 COP whether you like it or not.

[boguslaw]

And bouncing electric current is COP>1 too

[jibbguy]

Aaron showed observed good examples. He doesn't have to explain anything. Buy his book if you want explanations

Inertia can cause something to exhibit more energy out than in... Simply by inertial response. Add up the movement of the balls on the strings.... The initial energy expended was gotten back and then some by the 2nd bounce... Every bounce after that was "gravy".

Make it useful? Well, it can be used as a light "oscillating switch" to alternately obscure or allow light through a path to a photosensitive device. See, it's useful

Or, using THE SAME PRINCIPAL, Dr. Melkovic could use it to hammer the crap out of you hand, if you lay it on his Two Stage Oscillator's anvil by accident. That's useful for the Doctors who will get paid to bandage it up

There are literally hundreds of Physics papers at Los Alamos National Labs Archives that discuss Zero Point Energy... What they neglected to tell the world is, that it is now ACCEPTED SCIENCE IN THE MAINSTREAM. Lol. They accept it but still don't want to admit it publicly... Well, they're BUSTED. We know. And these idiotic "cant be!" arguments are done now... History. And good riddance.

Zero Point Energy could now be described as the possible unseen factor for adding energy to an open system. What does that mean..?

It means take your ROTTEN STINKING 1870's LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS and run them out to the trash bin... It's all over now.... Everything but the crying, that is

Of course most things will still adhere to them lol, but the idea they are "immutable", that the Universe is governed by them, is OVER... And should have been 130 years ago.

And that is enough: Enough to make the absurd denials for the possibility of these technologies we study sound utterly ridiculous and based on outmoded, PROVED WRONG thinking. Once these things are accepted as POSSIBLE, then they MUST BE STUDIED IN A SERIOUS MANNER!

Hmm.. Maybe thats why they forgot to tell us, lol ?

The tables are turned, Skeptics.... It is YOU who are the "unscientific kooks" if you continue to insist on sticking by these outmoded "Laws", and continue to jerk that knee whenever open systems are mentioned. If you thought it was bad last March when the Navy accepted LENR/ Cold Fusion and left you guys hanging in the breeze looking rather foolish... Then understand that's nothing compared to what's gonna happen to your world-view next

[Jbignes5]

And you name is Jbigness? Do you have the confidence to put your face and your name to anything you are saying whatsoever?

The principle I have shared is ACCURATE and if you don't get it, it is because you choose not to understand it and not because the principle is flawed.

My view has to broaden?

Your view is a dime a dozen and is nothing new...it is simply the conventional viewpoint, which is known to be completely flawed.

The open system and systems I describe ARE open systems and if you deny that, you are seriously misinformed and it is only your own viewpoint that needs to be broadened.

You can believe in the delusional view that something lifted against gravity at any height is "STORING" energy if you want but that just proves you have the conventional viewpoint of what potential is, which is absolutely and completely flawed as a matter of fact.

"I did not say that the apple was storing anything but only an analogy so that you could understand. Which apparently you are closed minded about. There is nothing different that you talk about from that of any wacked out back yard scientist wannabe."

Your potential that is stored is an IMAGINARY concept, which dosen't exist in the physical world and you cannot show any change in the intrinsic property of an apple at an increased height.

" Of cource potential in an object is imaginary. But then why would you know that. The potential is the calculated weight mass and surface structure to go along with the rest of the calculations of that apple falling to the ground. Nothing new from that but then againb you don't control gravity and you sure don't get gravity to work on your demand so then you have no idea about anything associated with gravity being there and the costs of that gravity. Just because it is there does not make it free. It operates weather you are there or not. It is an environmental effect. And the arguement of chancing the environment changes weather your system works or not still holds true. So is it truely open I think not."
If an apple is lying on the ground and I dig a hole next to it 10 feet deep, relative to the apple resting on the ground level, the conventional viewpoint would suddenly manifest a fictitious and delusional amount of potential that is suddenly supposed to be stored in that apple. I mean, anyone that believes that is seriously committed to self deception.

" Really then people who can calculate the event of an apple falling and round about what would happen then are just delusional. Even after the apple falls it does exactly what they predicted. No wonder you have no physical proof of this magical machine. That is not being a scientist and that is not using a scientific method to finding what you are looking for. There is no more work comming out of this then what was put in. The only thing changing is how efficient the transducer is. But just changing it to motion or motive force does not make it cop>1 that I would call delusional. Again design a device using that form of mechanics and you only add resistances lower the efficiency of you transducer."

What changed in the apple by having 10 feet of depth suddenly manifest next to the apple lying on the ground? Not a single thing! That is because there is NO SUCH THING as storing potential. You can only create a potential difference that allows potential to be tapped and put to work.

"not once have I seen a hole maifest by itself or by means of your majical coveyance. It costs something to be there and digging that hole wouldn't be worth what you get out of it."

The apple resting at any height has no stored potential from it being raised. That is ridiculous. If I hold it in my hand completely still at 6 feet above ground, there is no sudden amount of increased potential in that apple compared to it lying on the ground period. There is NO POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE that the apple sees while it is completely still at that height. ONLY when I let go is there a potential difference, gravity imparts a push on the apple and the apple hits the ground and produces work (and also produced work moving against air resistance)...that work added to what was necessary to lift the apple is MORE than what I had to provide.

"there is no work being done thru resisting air. That only slows the apple not work being done. You already capitulated that movement while under the influence of the environment is not work being performed. Only wasted potential energy."

You can say the hand holding the apple to begin with is the originating system, that is fine - the very moment the apple is let go of and gravitational potential is then able to be tapped by the apple, at that point, the system GROWS and GROWS and GROWS until the apple is at a dead rest.
" So where is your work being done here? when the apple falls and hits the ground it depletes the energy gained thru the falling which really is only potential or the weight and speed. When it hit's the potential is exerted as real force and the apple is no more."

Each time the system GROWS, more work is able to be extracted by the free potential and all that cumulative work is added together and is MORE than what was necessary to get the system started.

Again, a BOUNCING BALL IS OVER 1.0 COP whether you like it or not.

And no you cannot show that using a better transducer that uses less energy to move<-already capitulated movement while falling is not work being done is work at all.
You like to run in circles but I tell you I am open and I will look at everything with those open eyes. Until someone actually shows me a ball hooked to a genny making more then what it gets put in then I'll believe what you say. Those other devices are not true open because as soon as you try to tap that potential it goes poof.
That is my name jbigness Aaron, Why do you need to know that information? Gonna send some goons my way? Please....

In all of this arguement not once have you shown us how to get anything from this open system. Where is your millions of dollars? Oh thats right you got a book for sale... Aha... Come on please when looking at the system you are talking about it is only as open as the "Enviroment it is operating in". But even those have extents and long complicated rules. Of which you don't include in anything you are talking about. Any system that has shown anything over cop 1 is pretty much useless or hasn't been scrutinized to see all the variables that are involved.
Case in point someone was doing an experiment with a circuit and instead of measuring the energy used by the whole circuit they only put a light bulb in part of the circuit that was in high resonance. He didn't measure the energy being draw from the source, the wall socket, just by the bulb and it wasn't a very good test to acurately tell whats going on. If he had monitored the real power being drawn it would have shown to net nothing but losses. But the shell game gets played a lot in scams don't they?

[Cloxxki]

Does Jbignes5 need to identify himself to be allowed to beg to differ, online? Let's just presume he is one of our hero's in free energy research, who just happens to have his own understanding or even opinion. I for one can respect internet privacy. In the case of free energy research, it can be of great help when required.
Judging from his greatly original thinking on the Rodin thread, with new ideas he proposed with huge merit, it seems safe to conclude, that Jbignes5 is giving more to this community than taking.

I am tired of highly educated people dwelling on about oscillating circuits and mechanics. If you can't extract more that you put in, you're just looking at an effcient bouncing ball, nothing more. If the ball gets out of control, bouncing harder each time, I am ALL attention :-) I do want to be wrong at being a sceptic in this. I've for long believed all that was proposed or claimed, and got disappointed each time so far.
I am not volunteering, but seriously wonder whether placing one's hand under Milkovic's 2nd stage hammer would really mean crushed bones. It's oscillating let's sat 2 inches in height, and at low velocity. Your hand will get stuck under the first blow, the hammer will bounce back with less upward velocity (cross bar being out of balance), and return with even less. In the end, it will just rest on your hand. My girlfriend just stood on my hand, and it didn't break.
Mythbusters should stick Buster's gel hand under there, and see if it becomes a pancake. Further more, if you hand a 2" thick hand to match the hammer's amplitude, and shove it in there just at the highest point...the hammer will come down on you with zero inertia, and just rest on you with its full weight. After that, you'll have some fading oscillating tickles from the first stage pendulum quickly losing swing.

[Aaron]

gravity

If you do then please explain gravity for me.

I have explained this to my satisfaction and THOUSANDS of others as a matter of fact. I'm sure the model will grow but for the time being, it is a very simple model that seamlessly ties many concepts together.

[Jbignes5]

ummm....

I have explained this to my satisfaction and THOUSANDS of others as a matter of fact. I'm sure the model will grow but for the time being, it is a very simple model that seamlessly ties many concepts together.

No you don't explain you just say that you did already... Is this the refer to my book which by the way you need to buy from me?

What about all the other questions I asked Aaron? Why just pick one? Answer them please I'm waiting. If you have such an understanding about gravity and open systems explain the truely open atom for me Aaron.. For which no one know really about.... Like the bumble bee it shouldn't fly but it does. Listen I understand I'm rocking your foudations but please if you are gonna debate this then please answer my posts and make it a real debate and not a Well I answered that but I'm not gonna tell you what I said.

[Aaron]

@cloxxi

Does Jbignes5 need to identify himself to be allowed to beg to differ, online?

He is entitled to his opinion but the moment he wants to pop off at the mouth directly insulting someone: "Aaron could you please drop the I know everything act" he or she has crossed the line and obviously without any confidence in backing it up with who he is...same dime a dozen cynical rhetoric as the other stooges in the Ainslie thread. You guys ought to come up with new material - such as actually discussing things point by point that are brought up instead of character attacks and changing the subject to misdirect attention to something else because it is too uncomfortable to deal with the facts.

What I know for a fact is that the SYSTEM that I describe is accurate and another fact is that is it astoundingly profound how much fear there is to confront the fact that the conventional description of storing potential, etc... is a complete fraud and is a serious insult to anyone that has any degree of intelligence and common sense - and the wherewithal to figure it out.

The Rodin coil geometries have been used for many years in supercolliders, there is nothing new about them whatsoever. I have no comment on his work but the coils geometries are far from being new or innovative.

If you talk about a ball that bounces higher after each bounce then you attention is had... and you think that indicates more out than in? This means you do NOT understand the distinction of what you are even reading about and are arguing a point that is stuck in your mind as being the argument and not the real argument. You are simply doing what other skeptics are doing time and time again...not even understanding the distinctions enough to argue the points!

You are completely ignoring the fact that a bouncing ball that bounces to a lesser height on each bounce IS demonstrating more work that what was required to lift it to begin with. The OPEN SYSTEM CAN GROW as a whole while it dissipates energy along the way. You should UNDERSTAND there are no perpetual motion claims about the non-equilibrium systems and if you there there are (your reference to the ball bouncing higher each time) then you really, really, really are NOT understanding anything you are reading.

You are preaching the same old cynical viewpoint that the classicists are afraid to part with.

You mention mythbusters - that goes to show what your discretion and discernment sees as authority. They are a fraud as they have proven to be so on their FRAUDULENT debunking scam on their show with the Bedini machine AND with a MIT professor in physics that doesn't have enough sense to put magnets where they need to be in order to induce current into generator coils.

READ EVERY POST IN THIS THREAD....BEFORE COMMENTING.

You can see that when the "skeptics" ---in reality cynics...are put to the point... it is admitted there is EXTRA work in joules on each bounce, etc... BUT and this is a REALLY BIG ONE - that a classicist believes - WHEN THE BALL OR APPLE IS LET GO OF, A NEW SYSTEM IS CREATED WITH EACH BOUNCE AND THEY ARE ALL SEPARATE FROM EACH OTHER AND DO NOT GROW...JUST ISOLATED SYSTEMS WHERE THE WORK CANNOT BE ADDED TOGETHER.

That in all honesty is about the most ridiculous attempt at either self deception, denial or misinformation that I have ever seen in denying the truth.

For every post that I see that denies the truth and tries to distort and contort what I am saying (evidenced by arguing perpetual motion and other nonsense that I'm not talking about) - I will commit to having another 100 people learn my point of view. This is overunity networking. You stimulate this system with nonsense and I guarantee there will be MANY MANY times more people that will learn the truth.

There is a difference in what you, jbigness, or any other cynics are compared to skeptics. Any skeptic with any degree of honesty in their makeup will actually argue the points - I have NOT seen this with you or jbigness.

When I see this kind of dishonesty, all it does is motivate me to get the open system viewpoint into MANY more hands. The more dishonest rhetoric that is posted...it only serves me!

I have provided RESOURCES from the top of academia in the world at all the major universities on non-equilibrium thermodynamics...

What I can clearly see is that the skeptics simply either have no ability to comprehend what they are reading or they have no intention of changing their viewpoint even if they do understand what they are reading.

It is called beating a dead horse...

I will continue to post the truth and I will criticize BLATANT MISINFORMATION AND LIES - I will NEVER be complacent in this. Don't insult my intelligence or anyone else's here when you or other skeptics cannot even honestly stick to the points that I have made.

An apple sits on the ground...dig a hole 10 feet deep next to the apple. Relative to the bottom of the 10 foot hole, THE CONVENTIONAL VIEWPOINT will suddenly manifest a ILLUSIONARY CONCEPT called STORING POTENTIAL ENERGY that the apple now has.

This is the claim when lifting the apple...

What about now with a hole dug next to an apple on the ground...was energy stored in the apple during the process of digging a hole next to it?

If you say NO - then I can put in a small bit of work to push the apple in the hole and all work done is WAY MORE than what was put in.

If you say YES - then you admit it is an illusionary concept that has no basis in reality at all.

Basically, the conventional viewpoint is that this mysterious non-existant "stored potential" suddenly can manifest or not depending on perspective and that is all it is...NOTHING REAL - just magical pixie dust that is being sprinkled in people's eyes.

In either case - THE CONVENTIONAL ARGUMENT is DEAD.

Another thing for you Cloxxi - IF you are honest in your response...

ANSWER THE BOUNCING BALL QUESTION - 100% OF EVERY SKEPTIC HAS FAILED TO ANSWER - will you ignore this and give an answer that has nothing to do with the point and misdirect attention away from the facts? I don't know yet but maybe you can prove me wrong and I hope I am wrong

Lets say you have a ball that weights 10 grams...a rubber ball.
It takes lets just say X joule of energy to lift it to 1 meter high
over 1 second.

When it bounces, it goes to 80cm over .8 seconds
bounce #3, 60cm over .6 seconds
bounce #4, 40cm over .4 seconds
bounce #5, 20cm over .2 seconds

(in reality, it will bounce higher and MANY more times)

HOW MANY JOULES ARE REQUIRED TO LIFT THIS BALL
to:

100cm over 1 sec
80cm over .8 sec
60cm over .6 sec
40cm over .4 sec
20cm over .2 sec

[Aaron]

@jb

No you don't explain you just say that you did already... Is this the refer to my book which by the way you need to buy from me?

What about all the other questions I asked Aaron? Why just pick one? Answer them please I'm waiting. If you have such an understanding about gravity and open systems explain the truely open atom for me Aaron.. For which no one know really about.... Like the bumble bee it shouldn't fly but it does. Listen I understand I'm rocking your foudations but please if you are gonna debate this then please answer my posts and make it a real debate and not a Well I answered that but I'm not gonna tell you what I said.

You have proven to be too closed minded to warrant a real discussion.
If you want to discuss what you have FAILED 100% of the time in the past to do... ANSWER THE SAME QUESTIONS I POSTED TO CLOXXI. You CANNOT do it because you will be required to prove yourself wrong.

[Jbignes5]

Here we go again

Lifting the ball with your systerm is different then the ball transducing the potential which is a calculation of the parameters of such ball and the distance. The ball is a better transducer for energy then your aparatus to lift the ball in the first place. Hence why I beg to differ with your ball analogy. You are using two different systems to raise the ball against gravity. One is you initial system and the other is the system of the ball itself as a transducer of that energy when it hits. What takes you 1 jewel with your initial system is not 1 jewel with the balls own system of transducing the potential when it hits.
Thats the difference between your view of it and mine. I am looking at it as two systems because you disconnected the first and let the balls system take over. Your jewel is wasted entirely and only the potential of the Calculations here give it's new value like a generator I guess. When it hits it is much less then the one jewel you initially put in then the ball can tranduce the partial energy calculated from the balls weight distance blah blah blah and transduce it thru compression of the space inside it and and elasticity of the material it is made with and a ton of other calculations like resistences and such. Thats why the ball doesn't achieve anything over what you had initially put in to it because you are not thinking about the transducers efficiency to conver what is left from the drop. Take it out of context and you get COP>1 in context it is no more then a balance of what is left after the transducer (rubber ball structure) converts the energy that is present from the current drop distance.
I believe COP in this instance is being used out of context from what it was designed to protray. Which is very specific to the heat exchange units to differentiate between two makers and the efficiency of said units without saying it is 2000% efficient which most of the industry would baulk at. I have yet to see any other industry beside the renewable energy one even mentioning COP at all and if they did it would bring scruntiny on them for doing so.

[Jbignes5]

A few good questions about the ball?

Ok here are the additional items I would need to name a few.

Have you measured the jewels on first impact?
How about the second?
Third maybe?
Fouth? I bet not.

How are you seeing the cop of the ball?
What method?
Do you have a reading of the balls ability to convert the jewels into rebound force?
What are you using to measure the jewels of each fall?

This experiment is invalid because you are not applying a scientific method to the dicovery of the information you are requiring. You must know these answers since you are looking for the answer. How do you know you are correct if you don't have these answers? In fact how do you know I am wrong if you don't know the true scientific answer.

[Aaron]

joule of energy

Still, you fail to address the significant point that shows the obvious.

It is irrelevant what the COP was designed for. In CONCEPT, it is a ratio between work done and work we put into it. That is it and it is not complicated and no amount of obfuscation will get around this fact.

Just because the word NETWORK was originally used to describe the layout of bricks in a certain configuration. That does NOT mean that it is not appropriate or accurate to call a system of computers a network or a group of people a network. So based on your logic and rhetoric, network has totally been taken out of context from what it was originally meant to stand for and therefore we shouldn't use that word to describe computers or groups of people.

The object is to GROW our knowledge base and EXPAND our understanding of it. And through this evolution of information, our language inevitably grows as well. The term COP is completely understood to be more out than what WE had to put in.

IT DOES NOT MEAN MORE WORK IS BEING DONE THAN TOTAL INPUT, which of course requires there is extra input from somewhere aside from what we contributed - such as the ENVIRONMENTAL or any external input...gravity, time, water, air, etc...

COP IS accurately being used in every single context that I have used it in for what it accurately represents. Arguing whether or not it should only be used for heat is pure nonsense. If you read this thread, I proposed some ridiculous other names for the SAME THING as what COP represents but it is simply foolish for me to reinvent the wheel when COP ALREADY is perfectly suited to describe this concept.

Just fyi... joule is spelled joule and not jewel.

There are MORE or LESS efficient ways to lift the apple and no matter what method is used, the system that lifted the apple or ball IS the input required to initiate the system that WILL grow and grow with each bounce.

This is not a matter of semantics or a matter of how we see things differently, it is just simply the way it is. I'm not interested in defining these facts like I want them to be...it is simply a fact of describing the nature of a non-equilibrium system, period.

If you want to separate one system from the other, that is your prerogative but please realize, you are doing so because that is what you feel you must do for it to make sense to you. In reality, what lifted the apple or ball and all work done afterward IS TO BE CONSIDERED THE SAME SYSTEM.

The term GROWS (which it is CLEARLY acknowledged at the highest levels of academia that non-equilibrium systems GROW) implies that there is something that gains along the way and that is EXACTLY what a non-equilibrium system does WHILE IT IS DISSIPATING energy in a more efficient manner along the way and any gravity input is free potential that COSTS US NOTHING. That free environmental potential causes work and that work added to the lift requirement is MORE than the input work and is OVER 1.0 COP.

Again, no amount of obfuscation can change the facts.

[Jbignes5]

hmmm

You mean this?

The coefficient of performance or COP (sometimes CP), of a heat pump is the ratio of the change in heat at the "output" (the heat reservoir of interest) to the supplied work.

That is very very specific in it's design. You are changing the words then saying hey this work for here and oh look by the way the cop is >1 here. Unless your device is changing the ratio of heat at the output and it has a reservoir of heat to measure that change compared to the work performed of the DEVICE then cop in your instance is way out of context for what this term was designed to represent.
So in your example where is the ratio of change and what is it compared to... I am suspecting you are comparing it to the 1 jewel it took to get there but what is this ratio of change we are trying to measure? Distance? Impacts? Seeing that you capitulated to distance as not neccessarily being work then what would be the ratio?

[Aaron]

potential

Ok here are the additional items I would need to name a few.

Have you measured the jewels on first impact?
How about the second?
Third maybe?
Fouth? I bet not.

How are you seeing the cop of the ball?
What method?
Do you have a reading of the balls ability to convert the jewels into rebound force?
What are you using to measure the jewels of each fall?

This experiment is invalid because you are not applying a scientific method to the dicovery of the information you are requiring. You must know these answers since you are looking for the answer. How do you know you are correct if you don't have these answers? In fact how do you know I am wrong if you don't know the true scientific answer.

This post of yours demonstrates that you have not understood anything I have posted in this thread.

The energy dissipated on impact is irrelevant because....

1. Conventional physics requires X amount of joule(s) to LIFT it to each height.

2. Measure the height of each ball's bounce and how fast it bounces to each height. There will be a KNOWN mathematically calculatable amount of joules required for each bounce upwards to a known height at a known speed over a known time.

3. ADD ALL THE REQUIRED JOULES that conventional physics says is required to lift it to each height. Include the first lift joules.

4. Compare that to the required amount of joules needed to lift it the very first time.

Not applying scientific method? You are asking questions that don't even address the point.

You ignore very valid questions I have asked as well as every other skeptic.

Simply...

It requires 1 joule to lift a small apple to 10cm. IF THERE IS ANY POTENTIAL "STORED" IN THAT APPLE AFTER the apple was lifted, that means it didn't really require 1 joule to lift it after all did it? If .9 joules are stored at that resting height, then conventional physics MUST admit that it really only took 0.1 joules to lift it to 10cm and NOT 1 joule.

And simply...

If you "get the potential out that we put in when the apple drops" than that means that it really didn't take any potential at all to raise it to begin with - since MYSTERIOUSLY we just got out what we put in!!

What blatant contradictions!

And simply...

If you raise an apple to 10cm and it takes a joule of energy, the notion that the apple is storing anything is ridiculous. It stored potential that we put into it?

Again, dig a 10 foot hole next to an apple laying on the ground. I guarantee that apple will do a heck of a lot MORE work falling and hitting the ground that I would have to input into the apple by simply pushing it over the edge. What energy was "stored" in the apple by creating a potential difference of 10 feet between the bottom of the hole and the apple? The apple would have never been touched so don't tell me that the apple does go through some change in the amount of potential it has.

Potential is not some abstract concept to play with as conventional physics will have you believe. It is the radiant potential that all electrical circuits use for voltage potential and it is the same potential that gives a push on objects back towards the larger mass that displaced the gravitational potential. Potential is not an abstract concept, it is a literal polarized charge. It is not debatable that this free radiant potential exists.

The only thing that is debatable is what it is. I like the concept of the virtual photon flux of the quantum mechanical vacuum as Bearden describes it and as NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS have been acknowledged for.

Rosemary Ainslie likes her model of the zipons - magnetic particles.

Peter and John seem to move towards the neutral particle concept.

Others have their own model they like to describe this infinite potential.

What it comes down to is that this potential IS what exists in a symmetrical type of fluid medium UNTIL something breaks the symmetry of it such as an object that is falling and the hits the ground. While an object is at REST at any height, it is in EQUILIBRIUM and is dissipating 100% of all gravitational potential by the resistance that is encountered by whatever is holding it up - meaning there is NO storing of any of this potential just because it is lifted up against gravity and held at any height. The only time 100% of that potential isn't dissipated is when it is allowed to move and gives way to the downward push.

The answer - zero potential was stored in the apple by digging a hole next to it the same way that ZERO potential is stored in ANYTHING that is lifted to any height.

Don't you see that the concept of storing potential is an IMAGINARY concept that is convenient from a matter of PERSPECTIVE and has NOTHING to do with any energetic characteristics of the apple itself?

Actually, the higher an object goes from the surface of the Earth, the LESS available gravitational potential is has available to it since the density of the gravity gets WEAKER and WEAKER the further from the surface.

The potential relating to an object for useful purposes other than just dissipation at a height is gravitational potential that is ONLY available to the object while it is falling. During the fall, there is only dissipation of the GRAVITATION POTENTIAL that is pushing on the apple as it hits any air resistance, etc... and when it hits the ground, it is 100% from the gravitational potential that entered the apple once it is moving downwards and NOT at any resting height. That is NEW potential that was NEWLY available to the apple at the very moment of freefall and NONE of this potential is carried over from the energy we expended to lift the apple, which 100% of all potential that is required to lift an apple is DISSIPATED during the lift.

[Jbignes5]

Still, you fail to address the significant point that shows the obvious.

It is irrelevant what the COP was designed for. In CONCEPT, it is a ratio between work done and work we put into it. That is it and it is not complicated and no amount of obfuscation will get around this fact.
"The coefficient of performance or COP (sometimes CP), of a heat pump is the ratio of the change in heat at the "output" (the heat reservoir of interest) to the supplied work." You couldn't be more wrong on that.

Just because the word NETWORK was originally used to describe the layout of bricks in a certain configuration. That does NOT mean that it is not appropriate or accurate to call a system of computers a network or a group of people a network. So based on your logic and rhetoric, network has totally been taken out of context from what it was originally meant to stand for and therefore we shouldn't use that word to describe computers or groups of people.

The object is to GROW our knowledge base and EXPAND our understanding of it. And through this evolution of information, our language inevitably grows as well. The term COP is completely understood to be more out than what WE had to put in.

IT DOES NOT MEAN MORE WORK IS BEING DONE THAN TOTAL INPUT, which of course requires there is extra input from somewhere aside from what we contributed - such as the ENVIRONMENTAL or any external input...gravity, time, water, air, etc...

COP IS accurately being used in every single context that I have used it in for what it accurately represents. Arguing whether or not it should only be used for heat is pure nonsense. If you read this thread, I proposed some ridiculous other names for the SAME THING as what COP represents but it is simply foolish for me to reinvent the wheel when COP ALREADY is perfectly suited to describe this concept.

"The coefficient of performance or COP (sometimes CP), of a heat pump is the ratio of the change in heat at the "output" (the heat reservoir of interest) to the supplied work." this is not the same concept as you describe in any form. They are talking about a ratio in a change of heat at the output to the !supplied! work. Not gravity not ambient temp gains but supplied work! You didn't supply the gravity hence it is outside your contolling system! Hello! Just as much as you didn't supply the nuclear radiation to cause a reaction to fire a nuclear plant. Yes you Brought it to the plant but you did nothing to cause the radiating event. And it is finite hence why we have all the crap left over.

Just fyi... joule is spelled joule and not jewel.

" Ahhh now I see an english major. You should have payed more attention to the english part and maybe you could have understood what context really means. My bad I'll refer to it by the correct spelling. Joule..."

There are MORE or LESS efficient ways to lift the apple and no matter what method is used, the system that lifted the apple or ball IS the input required to initiate the system that WILL grow and grow with each bounce.

"It doesn't grow in fact from the obvious smaller and smaller bounces it is getting less and less. You still haven't got the thing about transducers yet have you? How did the ball get there initially? Have you measured the impact for joules yet? I bet it is like 20% of what it took to get there. So from 100%=1 joule then first bounce returns 50% of a joule then the next bounce is 25% then the next is 12.5% then the next is 6.25 and the next is 3.125% and the next is 1.0625% And thats conservative and not including resistances like surface area and small amount of vacume as it displaces air... Plus losses for like the kind of material used."

This is not a matter of semantics or a matter of how we see things differently, it is just simply the way it is. I'm not interested in defining these facts like I want them to be...it is simply a fact of describing the nature of a non-equilibrium system, period.

"you are describing what you believe it is not how it is. If it was that way you would be rich already. At least you would be able to describe in more detail about the questions I ask. But still no answer to them."

If you want to separate one system from the other, that is your prerogative but please realize, you are doing so because that is what you feel you must do for it to make sense to you. In reality, what lifted the apple or ball and all work done afterward IS TO BE CONSIDERED THE SAME SYSTEM.

"It clearly is not the same system. You did not use the same aparatus in the lifting of the ball it is seperate. When the ball drops not matter if you put it there or not you loose control of that system. It is in the envirenmental system and nothing that is gleaned after you loose control has anything to do with your input. You have no way or logical way to claim anything. There is no such thing as an open system. System by design is enclosed in control to get a desired effect. If you want to say your system is open to input then ok but how are you collecting the work done? Anything that happens outside of your control is obviously envirenmental and not your to own. You may watch it but you sure can not collect anything after that and it is no different then a tree falling out in the woods. Oh wait maybe you caused that and should say your COP is infinet then because everything that rolled down or bounced in the evironment is because your system did it. Please thats just obsurd...

The term GROWS (which it is CLEARLY acknowledged at the highest levels of academia that non-equilibrium systems GROW) implies that there is something that gains along the way and that is EXACTLY what a non-equilibrium system does WHILE IT IS DISSIPATING energy in a more efficient manner along the way and any gravity input is free potential that COSTS US NOTHING. That free environmental potential causes work and that work added to the lift requirement is MORE than the input work and is OVER 1.0 COP.

Again, no amount of obfuscation can change the facts.

I don't pretent to know everything. But what I do know is you think you do and boy you are convinced that you have the facts. You are the posterboy for quantum mechanics aren't you. You the observer are infinet and cause everything outside of your physical system. Wow how god like of you.